The Senate in mid-July will take up a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to cast a tough political vote just weeks before the Democratic presidential convention in Massachusetts.

While no one is surprised by this, the timing was uncertain until now. This schedule clearly is meant to hurt Kerry at the convention, as a latter vote would be more effective against Senate Dems running for re-election.

The question is: do Senate Dems rally to support Kerry, or defect to save their own butts?

Bonus question: will the number of defecting Republicans be greater or less than the number of defecting Dems?

so far, the only "Democrat" to come out in favor of this is Zell Miller. But several Republicans, around 20 or so have come out against it. My prediction is that it goes down in flames, with Traitor Zell being the only "Democrat" to vote for it.

The Senate in mid-July will take up a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to cast a tough political vote just weeks before the Democratic presidential convention in Massachusetts.

While no one is surprised by this, the timing was uncertain until now. This schedule clearly is meant to hurt Kerry at the convention, as a latter vote would be more effective against Senate Dems running for re-election.

The question is: do Senate Dems rally to support Kerry, or defect to save their own butts?

Bonus question: will the number of defecting Republicans be greater or less than the number of defecting Dems?

My prediction: Dems support Kerry, 3 defections from both parties.

Oh, is that still going on? I thought that went the way of just about everything else Bush talked about during his RIVETING State of the Union. You remember, don't you? The mission to Mars? Yeah, wasn't Bush going to send Zell Miller to Mars or sumpthin?

As to "hurting" anyone, STAND CLEAR! Bush is about to blow his toes off on this one. America recognizes the motives behind this stink bomb, and I see zero -- absolutely zero -- splattering of Kerry.

I think something close to 50/50 is pretty much a given, but whether that has impact on Kerry depends on the makeup of the vote. A straight party-line vote casts the issue as a partisan one; several defections each way show the issue to be somewhat non-partisan. The party-line outcome hurts Kerry slightly, the other has little effect.

As far as strategy goes, it would have been better for Bush to let the Defense of Marriage Act vote be the only gage of Kerry's record on this. That vote was 85 yea/15 nay, with Kerry on the nays; that outcome makes Kerry look more extreme. If several Republicans vote with Kerry against the GMA, then no one will care about the 1996 vote.

However, the vote schedule does force Kerry to address the issue shortly before he appears in Boston at the convention--in a state that is struggling with this issue. If his strategy is to defend his senate vote while avoiding a stand on the state issue, then we could possibly see a blunder at the worst possible time for him.

I think something close to 50/50 is pretty much a given, but whether that has impact on Kerry depends on the makeup of the vote. A straight party-line vote casts the issue as a partisan one; several defections each way show the issue to be somewhat non-partisan. The party-line outcome hurts Kerry slightly, the other has little effect.

As far as strategy goes, it would have been better for Bush to let the Defense of Marriage Act vote be the only gage of Kerry's record on this. That vote was 85 yea/15 nay, with Kerry on the nays; that outcome makes Kerry look more extreme. If several Republicans vote with Kerry against the GMA, then no one will care about the 1996 vote.

However, the vote schedule does force Kerry to address the issue shortly before he appears in Boston at the convention--in a state that is struggling with this issue. If his strategy is to defend his senate vote while avoiding a stand on the state issue, then we could possibly see a blunder at the worst possible time for him.

Democrats are pissing me off with this. When Kerry says he's against gay marriage, I really don't buy it for a second. If he was he'd have no porblem with an amendment. He just can't stand with the gays right now when 60% of the country still finds gay marriage wrong. That'll change, I can't imagine my generation havng a problem with gay marriage.

John Kerry's stance on Gay Marriage:Under the rather cryptic name of "LGBT" (other groups and issues are clearly labeled) Kerry pushes his Gay Rights record. However:- He makes no mention of the Gay Marriage Amendment- He makes no mention of his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act- He makes no mention of the issue in his home state

This is how Kerry dodges the issue on his own website on a page specifically targeting gays and lesbians. With leadership like that, do you think Kerry will even show up for the vote on the amendment?

I think John Kerry will not hinder the progress by fighting against the rulings that these courts make. That's his apathetic attitude on the issue.

Logged

I'm a proud NH Primary voter for 2008.

Harry Reid 08'

"As some warn victory, some downfallPrivate reasons great or smallCan be seen in the eyes of those that callTo make all that should be killed to crawlWhile others say don't hate nothing at allExcept hatred."

John Kerry's stance on Gay Marriage:Under the rather cryptic name of "LGBT" (other groups and issues are clearly labeled) Kerry pushes his Gay Rights record. However:- He makes no mention of the Gay Marriage Amendment- He makes no mention of his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act- He makes no mention of the issue in his home state

This is how Kerry dodges the issue on his own website on a page specifically targeting gays and lesbians. With leadership like that, do you think Kerry will even show up for the vote on the amendment?

probably not, but no one expects him to anyway.

But if no one defects except Zell Miller, and many Republicans do, which is expected, it's the best case scenario for Kerry. It makes his position look mainstream and perfect.

The GOP could've easily shot themselves in the foot with this. They could've just attacked Kerry's vote against the DOMA, but by pursuing this instead, they're making his position look mainstream.

John Kerry's opinion on the Federal Marriage Amendment: Bush is causing unemployment.

Kerry is cowering on gay marriage just like he cowers on the Patriot Act. He's a wimp, he likes to stay non-controversial. That's why he constantly shifts position and has even less sense of himself than Clark and Dean - who were also big position shifters.

We cannot trust Kerry to defend the Constitution from the Patriot Act if he can't even side with a 75% Democratic constituency: gay people. If he won't defend the Constitution for the left-wing, why would he do it on a much harder issue? Simple, he won't because it's a very effective wedge issue.

Democrats since FDR (1930s and 1940s) have pulled the voters with less formal education. This group only went GOP in primary 3 times since FDR: 1972, 1988, and 2000. This is a large demographic (usually 1/4th of the vote) that the Democrats need, and polls show it's a big gain for Bush on the gay marriage issue. They don't like it, and even Democratic pollsters admit it most of the time. The issue is not who will gain but how much Bush will gain from the FMA. This is the area of his pick-up, this is the demographic that prefers voting for socially center-right, fiscally centrist or center-left (Christian Democrat or populist, in other words) candidates. The Democrats are often not so far left as to lose this group, and economics more than picks them up. With Bush moving left on budget, spending and social programs he is in a great position, and putting up a social wedge issue like this one makes him seem a) like a leader with convictions and b) like he's not nearly so crazy as Kerry.

He'll win votes from it. It's very sad that it happens, it's a stupid issue, but he will pick up from it. We have to counter this issue by a strong turnout for a Presidential candidate against the FMA: Badnarik!

Bush proposed it and Kerry is waffling big time, but Badnarik is against it and marching in the gay pride parade in support of self-determination.

On this particular issue, I split with many politicians who I am a big fan of (namely, Rick Santorum, Zell Miller and President Bush). Even if I believed in the content of this ammendment, I still wouldn't support such a ridiculous thing being in the Constitution.

Anyone who disliked gay marriage was either already voting for Bush or was voting for Badnarik despite it.

But protecting the Constitution from these misadventures might win the Libertarian quite a few votes from people inclined to that position, gay and straight. I mean, how can gay people vote for Bush after this, and how can they be very thrilled about Kerry? I suspect the Libertarians are in a position to make some headway among the gay demographic - who are the most affluent minority and tend to be both fiscally and socially inclined toward the libertarian perspective.

Anyone who disliked gay marriage was either already voting for Bush or was voting for Badnarik despite it.

But protecting the Constitution from these misadventures might win the Libertarian quite a few votes from people inclined to that position, gay and straight. I mean, how can gay people vote for Bush after this, and how can they be very thrilled about Kerry? I suspect the Libertarians are in a position to make some headway among the gay demographic - who are the most affluent minority and tend to be both fiscally and socially inclined toward the libertarian perspective.

The question would be easily answered if the issue of gay marriage was put on the ballot in all 50 states. Much like the issue of abortion.

Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues. Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately. Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed. Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.

Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues. Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately. Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed. Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.

So should homosexuals be allowed to enter a church and get married? Should they recieve the same benefits as a male and female marriage?

Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues. Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately. Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed. Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.

So should homosexuals be allowed to enter a church and get married? Should they recieve the same benefits as a male and female marriage?

Neither abortion nor gay marriage should be ballot issues. Gay marriage is a private contract, it should always be allowed privately. Abortion is murder, a human rights issue, it should never be allowed. Neither should be up for the ballot because these are issues of rights.

So should homosexuals be allowed to enter a church and get married? Should they recieve the same benefits as a male and female marriage?

You know, we could probably keep health care costs down if we'd stop letting blacks get insurance.

Maybe we should cut off the women, too.

Sounds like race baiting to me. I shouldn't even justify a response to that. So I'll ignore that post. Gay relationships are not natural. They should not cost me $ out of my pocket. They have a higher rate of STDs too.

Gay relationships are not natural. They should not cost me $ out of my pocket. They have a higher rate of STDs too.

Hets, from what I see of your posts, have a higher rate of mental illness and mental retardation.

If you wish to get snippy about paying for things, why should I, a person with no kids, pay for the education of the many little nippers that "breeders" plop out with too must regularity? But I know your "issue" on this subject isn't money: it's hatred and bigotry.